Charlotte Gray was something of a box-office disaster in the States, which damaged its reputation in the rest of the world. While it's not hard to see why American audiences didn't go for it, it's harder to understand the malice European critics greeted it with. It's a pretty good portrait of resistance infighting (the Communists are setup by the De Gaullists as liberation approaches), local collaboration (the schoolteacher gladly helps the Nazis root out Jewish families) and the nuts and bolts of resistance work. No great heroics or big setpieces, which is probably why it tanked: the big climax is more an emotional risk than the rescue audiences probably wanted. Performances are mostly good - Blanchett is much better than contemporary reviews would have you believe in particular. There are better films, but it's a good movie and for my money better than the alright Lucie Aubrac. I liked it enough to buy the DVD.
145 Reviews
Brave, but lousy script
fadedGlory27 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Anybody who dares to make a French Resistance movie after the runaway success of the TV spoof 'Allo Allo' gets 5 points for bravery, no less.
Unfortunately, bravery is not enough to make a good movie. Even bravery coupled with excellent actors, nice cinematography and an eye for detail is not enough. Any film can be ruined by a poor script and Charlote Gray is no exception.
The whole tale is just so unlikely. The way Charlotte gets 'picked up' by the British Secret Service - the guy making the first approach is such an annoying bore, why on Earth would she accept his invitation for a party instead of throwing his business card in the first available bin? Then, she falls in love with this pilot (how's that for cliché's?) and of course he is shot down on his next mission ('don't worry' he said - naturally). So, she joins the Secret Service (as simple as that) and trains to become an agent in the hope to go to France and find him. Now that is really strange - this training would take months, so why would she expect him to still be at the place he was shot down if and when she ever manages to get there? Wouldn't he likely be back in England, or in a POW camp in Germany? Anyway, training over, she gets sent to France on her first mission. But this is very strange - we don't really get any insight in what this mission actually is. She delivers a couple of radio valves to a French contact, but why these haven't simply been dropped as a parcel is a mystery. Later in the film she acts as intermediary between a locally based English agent and the Resistance. Why do they need to send in another British agent to act as intermediary? Why not let the local agent liaise with the Resistance directly? There seems no rhyme or reason for her being there at all.
At the handover of the valves, her contact is arrested (more mysteries - why does this contact insist to receive the valves when she is about to be arrested? A sure way to torture and death!) and Charlotte has to hide. But does she hide? No, not really - she goes to live with the father of the young Resistance leader under the pretext of working as a housekeeper. And next thing, she happily cycles to town as if there was no risk at all that the initial contact would have told the Gestapo all about her drop! So why is she hiding in the first place? A mystery.
And so it goes on and on - every twist of the plot makes it more unlikely. Why do the Resistance take Charlotte along when they attack a train? Why does the Resistance leader risk his life and his group by standing on the street shouting at the Germans? Why do the Germans kill the Resistance fighters in a trap instead of capturing them for interrogation? How do the Germans know where the young Jewish boys are being hidden? In the end, the whole point of the movie seems to be to paint a love triangle against a backdrop of the French Resistance - wow, we really needed a film like that! The script simply sucks, and the actors don't know what to do with it either. The cinematography is very nice, but then of course it is hard to go wrong when filming in the French countryside.
Five stars for bravery, that's what I promised, so I will stick to that.
If only that policeman had said 'Good Moaning', I would have given it six stars for even more bravery.
Unfortunately, bravery is not enough to make a good movie. Even bravery coupled with excellent actors, nice cinematography and an eye for detail is not enough. Any film can be ruined by a poor script and Charlote Gray is no exception.
The whole tale is just so unlikely. The way Charlotte gets 'picked up' by the British Secret Service - the guy making the first approach is such an annoying bore, why on Earth would she accept his invitation for a party instead of throwing his business card in the first available bin? Then, she falls in love with this pilot (how's that for cliché's?) and of course he is shot down on his next mission ('don't worry' he said - naturally). So, she joins the Secret Service (as simple as that) and trains to become an agent in the hope to go to France and find him. Now that is really strange - this training would take months, so why would she expect him to still be at the place he was shot down if and when she ever manages to get there? Wouldn't he likely be back in England, or in a POW camp in Germany? Anyway, training over, she gets sent to France on her first mission. But this is very strange - we don't really get any insight in what this mission actually is. She delivers a couple of radio valves to a French contact, but why these haven't simply been dropped as a parcel is a mystery. Later in the film she acts as intermediary between a locally based English agent and the Resistance. Why do they need to send in another British agent to act as intermediary? Why not let the local agent liaise with the Resistance directly? There seems no rhyme or reason for her being there at all.
At the handover of the valves, her contact is arrested (more mysteries - why does this contact insist to receive the valves when she is about to be arrested? A sure way to torture and death!) and Charlotte has to hide. But does she hide? No, not really - she goes to live with the father of the young Resistance leader under the pretext of working as a housekeeper. And next thing, she happily cycles to town as if there was no risk at all that the initial contact would have told the Gestapo all about her drop! So why is she hiding in the first place? A mystery.
And so it goes on and on - every twist of the plot makes it more unlikely. Why do the Resistance take Charlotte along when they attack a train? Why does the Resistance leader risk his life and his group by standing on the street shouting at the Germans? Why do the Germans kill the Resistance fighters in a trap instead of capturing them for interrogation? How do the Germans know where the young Jewish boys are being hidden? In the end, the whole point of the movie seems to be to paint a love triangle against a backdrop of the French Resistance - wow, we really needed a film like that! The script simply sucks, and the actors don't know what to do with it either. The cinematography is very nice, but then of course it is hard to go wrong when filming in the French countryside.
Five stars for bravery, that's what I promised, so I will stick to that.
If only that policeman had said 'Good Moaning', I would have given it six stars for even more bravery.
Billy Crudup - practically perfect in every way
melp19813 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I know this is a serious board devoted to the merits of the movie... but I would like to just mention the fact that rarely does an actor have the effect on me that Billy Crudup did in this film. Oh my god what a beauty! Perfect in every way... And obviously extremely talented, made more perfect by his professional choices!
So, the film. Well, as a (some time ago) graduate of military history, with a particular interest in the sociological effects of war I have a special fondness for stories like this. I sought out the book and devoured it. I loved it, absolutely, as I do pretty much everything else by Sebastian Faulks. I also enjoyed this film immensely, but as a separate entity. A film is generally incapable of reaching the depths your imagination can take you to through reading a truly great book, maybe people should spend more time reading!
I don't agree with the mauling this film was given by the critics, it kept me engaged from beginning to end and the happy ending, although a little trite, is a smile worthy event!
Sod the dodgy Scottish, Kate Blanchet was believable as far as I'm concerned. Billy was perfect, as I think I might have mentioned! Michael Gambon - always worth watching and the chap that played the teacher was sufficiently creepy from first sight. The boys were sympathetic without being irritating child actors and the atmosphere was intimidating.
It was emotional without being over the top, the relationship between the leads was wonderfully portrayed and I feel it was a valuable description of the horrific situation of collaboration.
Not the best film I've ever seen but I definitely enjoyed it. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, and I don't like to bring it up, but Billy Crudup is a god among men.
Watch it with an open mind.
So, the film. Well, as a (some time ago) graduate of military history, with a particular interest in the sociological effects of war I have a special fondness for stories like this. I sought out the book and devoured it. I loved it, absolutely, as I do pretty much everything else by Sebastian Faulks. I also enjoyed this film immensely, but as a separate entity. A film is generally incapable of reaching the depths your imagination can take you to through reading a truly great book, maybe people should spend more time reading!
I don't agree with the mauling this film was given by the critics, it kept me engaged from beginning to end and the happy ending, although a little trite, is a smile worthy event!
Sod the dodgy Scottish, Kate Blanchet was believable as far as I'm concerned. Billy was perfect, as I think I might have mentioned! Michael Gambon - always worth watching and the chap that played the teacher was sufficiently creepy from first sight. The boys were sympathetic without being irritating child actors and the atmosphere was intimidating.
It was emotional without being over the top, the relationship between the leads was wonderfully portrayed and I feel it was a valuable description of the horrific situation of collaboration.
Not the best film I've ever seen but I definitely enjoyed it. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, and I don't like to bring it up, but Billy Crudup is a god among men.
Watch it with an open mind.
Blanchette is once more moving!
Aribelusa9 September 2007
Serendipity! This relatively unknown movie -why?- is another compelling showcase of Blanchett's talent. She kept the storyline moving along and engages the audience with her wonderful camera presence. She is believable as our heroine because of her chemistry with both male interests, make resolve with her vulnerabilities, yet still able to be strong as a secret agent should and providing a motherly side, sheltering little ones from harsh truths in dangerous times.
France's beautiful & panoramic countryside was the backdrop during WW2. The clothing, locale and props of the period seem authentic. The actors delivered their parts very well, contributing credibility to the story's basis. Charlotte Gray conveys what people undergo and learn about the world and themselves in dreadfully gripping circumstances.
Realistic, moving, tear-dropping!
France's beautiful & panoramic countryside was the backdrop during WW2. The clothing, locale and props of the period seem authentic. The actors delivered their parts very well, contributing credibility to the story's basis. Charlotte Gray conveys what people undergo and learn about the world and themselves in dreadfully gripping circumstances.
Realistic, moving, tear-dropping!
Coulour It Bland
writers_reign15 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, you know going in that it's yet another film about a female agent liaising with the Resistance in Occupied France during World War Two, some viewers may even have read the (undeservedly) best-selling novel on which it was based, but you go anyway, maybe you admire Cate Blanchett and I've no quarrel with that, she's a fine actress, maybe you like 'period' movies, again you won't hear a squawk out of me, in fact those two reasons were what prompted me. It's a good movie - well, it's not a BAD movie, but perhaps in this case the opposite of bad is NOT good. An indifferent movie is nearer the truth. Within the last couple of years an English newspaper gave away a series of dvds set in WWII one of which was Carve Her Name With Pride which covers much of the same ground except that it was about a REAL Resistance worker, Violette Szabo, who failed to survive the war unlike the fictional Gray; Carve Her Name, made in black and white is light years better than the Technicolored Charlotte Gray, Blanchett's fine performance notwithstanding. As long as we're making comparisons I also disagree with the person who unaccountably rated this movie higher than Claude Berri's Lucie Aubrac but then difference of opinion is what makes horse races.
Shining Cate Blanchett + Poor Script = Mediocre War Film
dromasca12 October 2002
Is Cate Blanchett the best actress today? I start believing it. She just performed superbly in all the last films I saw. Almost any critic I read compares her with Meryl Streep, and no wonder - she has the interior strength and beauty that makes her shine in all roles, without being of a remarkable physical beauty.
Unfortunately, 'Charlotte Gray' cannot offer Cate Blanchett a good script to turn it in a Big movie. The story is quite un-believable, and if it has any logic it is Hollywood logic. Hard to believe an anonymous girl can train and become a spy just because she wants to search for her disappeared lover, and we never get any sense of the reasons she is being sent for. The Holocaust story is spoiled and sentimental a la Hollywood, and the characters behave without any real interior reason, just as the cliches of big studios American movies ask. Most awful is the treatment of the language. Blanchet is a Scot, lives in London, and then is sent to France because she is speaking fluent French. All the movie is spoken in English. Why? Language plays a role in the spying game, and if French was used in the scenes happening in France, much credibility could have been added.
Despite all the film is watchable, and I enjoyed every second Cate Blanchett is on screen. I am looking forward for the great movies and the Oscars to come, as she deserves.
Unfortunately, 'Charlotte Gray' cannot offer Cate Blanchett a good script to turn it in a Big movie. The story is quite un-believable, and if it has any logic it is Hollywood logic. Hard to believe an anonymous girl can train and become a spy just because she wants to search for her disappeared lover, and we never get any sense of the reasons she is being sent for. The Holocaust story is spoiled and sentimental a la Hollywood, and the characters behave without any real interior reason, just as the cliches of big studios American movies ask. Most awful is the treatment of the language. Blanchet is a Scot, lives in London, and then is sent to France because she is speaking fluent French. All the movie is spoken in English. Why? Language plays a role in the spying game, and if French was used in the scenes happening in France, much credibility could have been added.
Despite all the film is watchable, and I enjoyed every second Cate Blanchett is on screen. I am looking forward for the great movies and the Oscars to come, as she deserves.
for Cate Blanchett fans only
SnoopyStyle16 May 2014
In the midst of WWII, Charlotte Gray (Cate Blanchett) falls for dashing pilot Peter Gregory. She is recruited into the secret service since she spent time in France and is fluent. When Peter is lost behind the lines, she pushes to get the courier job for the French Resistance. Only she has the ulterior motive to find her missing love. Once on french soil, she finds french communist fighter Julien Levade (Billy Crudup).
This is an utterly old fashion melodrama. That has less to do with the setting or time period. It has more to do with the style and the subject matter. The romance has no time to develop and has a very superficial manufactured old romance novel feel. Other than a pretty face, there is nothing to justify the grand romance being depicted. It would probably be more compelling to have this about a family member. Cate Blanchett is a truly wonderful actress, and any positives from this movie are all due to her. There is a sense of danger but it doesn't persist. Director Gillian Armstrong has made a beautiful movie. It just doesn't have better passion or excitement.
This is an utterly old fashion melodrama. That has less to do with the setting or time period. It has more to do with the style and the subject matter. The romance has no time to develop and has a very superficial manufactured old romance novel feel. Other than a pretty face, there is nothing to justify the grand romance being depicted. It would probably be more compelling to have this about a family member. Cate Blanchett is a truly wonderful actress, and any positives from this movie are all due to her. There is a sense of danger but it doesn't persist. Director Gillian Armstrong has made a beautiful movie. It just doesn't have better passion or excitement.
Meant Well but still kind of disappointing!
Sylviastel10 February 2007
Cate Blanchett is becoming one of Australia's best known actresses worldwide and with good reason. She has the class, style, and appearance of a female movie star from the golden era of Hollywood. She is still a classic beauty but conveys intelligence, wit, and seriousness about her roles as a work of art. In the title role of Charlotte Grey, she plays a British woman who goes looking for the man she loves in the midst of World War II. He was a member of the Royal Air Force and his plane was shot down. Determined to find out his fate regardless of all the dangerous consequences, Charlotte assumes a new name and is taken in by a French family. They filmed the village scenes in Toulouse with locals as extras. Some remember when the Germans invaded France with great pain and anguish even to this day. The film is quietly strong but not for the cinema. It might have gotten better reception on Masterpiece Theater. The scenery, art direction, costumes are all first rate but the writing lacked something in my opinion.
A lovely film
rps-211 January 2003
If nothing else, the superb cinematography makes Charlotte Grey a winner. The picture is filmed through a creative and sensitive eye with wonderful angles, evocative moods and sensitive textures and shades. The rain and snow outside the train window in the opening scenes is somehow just so right. But photography aside, this is a gripping and well acted work that will satisfy fans of both war movies and love stories. Michael Gambon gives an Oscar worthy performance. It's also so nice to see a film that does not have one of those dreadful syrupy and impractical happy endings. Not that it's a totally sad ending. Call it a bitter sweet ending. In any case this film is an absolute delight from the titles to the closing scene.
Pretty good
TheLittleSongbird13 September 2010
I am not denying Charlotte Grey doesn't have flaws, it does, but I for one do not think it is a bad movie. In fact I think it is pretty good. I agree the story is unbelievable on the most part, and the script is really quite poor in spots and the film does drag in the middle. However, the cinematography, costumes, sets, scenery and locations are immaculate and the music is haunting and beautiful and the growing attraction between Charlotte and Julien avoids the trap of being too sappy. The direction is decent enough too, while the acting is good particularly from Cate Blanchett who is very classy and determined and I liked Michael Gambon and Billy Crudup too. Overall, it is a pretty good film. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Catalogue of errors
malcolmgsw13 April 2006
This film recently surfaced on Channel 4.I saw it when it came out and thought it awful then and my view has not changed.What grates with me is the fact that it trivialises the role that many brave women played in SOE.Cate Blanchett is approached on a train.Well that just would not have happened.She seems to have been sent to France without a defined role.One minute she is a courier then she is involved in the blowing up of the train.She is constantly asking people for their names,and then if that is not bad enough she tries to find out about her RAF boyfriend who is hiding in a French village.Then she becomes involved in trying to avoid the roundup of Jewish children.None of this is in any way true to life.Watch "Odette" or "Carve Her Name With Pride" to find a truer representation of SOE agents in France.
An excellent Cate Blanchett in a superior "old school" war/romance
carpenoctum1879 August 2003
This film has a genuine feel for the grand old tradition of Hollywood war romances. It's elegantly crafted escapism of the highest order, beautiful to look at, with the added bonus of an intelligent script and great performances all around. As I've seen time and again where poor endings mar otherwise good films, I'm always keen on how the curtain falls. This one had what I felt was a great curtain line that nicely tied in the heroine's odyssey of identity confusion and moral ambiguity in the shadow world of undercover war espionage (a "gray" that was more than just her name) to her eventual discovery of self, strength, and purpose as her true character is slowly forged in the crucible of danger and strife. As war brings out the very worst of qualities in humanity, so too can heightened expressions of bravery, compassion, and loyalty serve to greatly ennoble the human spirit in times of blood and sorrow. The movie does a nice job of highlighting that theme in several of its characters. Cate Blanchett does a wonderful job with the title role and this film is a strong 9 out of 10.
War is never black or white; it has many shades of "Gray".
simondajo12 January 2003
In this evocative war film, we don't get the usual battle scenes or
soldiers etc ( such as Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket ).
We do not see the brutality and realism of death camps. We get a
refreshing perspective, showing how war affects everyday people,
such as Charlotte and the French villagers, and the two little boys ,
who we do not realise are Jewish straight away; just ordinary kids. This film works on a number of levels; how war forces people to
make unbearable decisions, such as Julien's decision to save the
children rather than his father. How war causes inherent distrust,
betrayal, and loyalty; bringing out both the worst and best in
everyday people. It comments on the fleeting circumstances of
love, and its fragility; Charlotte realises that because of her
experiences she cannot possibly love the English pilot; which is
what all of her motivation and desire originally was; war changes
people forever. Armstrong deliberately and cleverly gives Blanchett
the name "Gray"; in the process of the story she increasingly
becomes confused, guilt-ridden, distrustful; realising that war is
not the good guy against the bad guy ( an easy attitude for the pilot
who can just shoot down an enemy plane if it has German
markings, or bomb targets that are German...he was aloof and
"cold" because of this role, and Charlotte sees it in their final
meeting, after she had been immersed in the conflict rather than
flying above it ). War has so many shades of grey ( gray ), very
perceptively portrayed by the director; naturally, a woman. This will
be an eternal issue; carried on at this very moment by the
inevitable war with Iraq; politicians and those who brainwash the
military, if they haven't been already, can only see in black or white,
and will always face the consequences of this.
soldiers etc ( such as Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket ).
We do not see the brutality and realism of death camps. We get a
refreshing perspective, showing how war affects everyday people,
such as Charlotte and the French villagers, and the two little boys ,
who we do not realise are Jewish straight away; just ordinary kids. This film works on a number of levels; how war forces people to
make unbearable decisions, such as Julien's decision to save the
children rather than his father. How war causes inherent distrust,
betrayal, and loyalty; bringing out both the worst and best in
everyday people. It comments on the fleeting circumstances of
love, and its fragility; Charlotte realises that because of her
experiences she cannot possibly love the English pilot; which is
what all of her motivation and desire originally was; war changes
people forever. Armstrong deliberately and cleverly gives Blanchett
the name "Gray"; in the process of the story she increasingly
becomes confused, guilt-ridden, distrustful; realising that war is
not the good guy against the bad guy ( an easy attitude for the pilot
who can just shoot down an enemy plane if it has German
markings, or bomb targets that are German...he was aloof and
"cold" because of this role, and Charlotte sees it in their final
meeting, after she had been immersed in the conflict rather than
flying above it ). War has so many shades of grey ( gray ), very
perceptively portrayed by the director; naturally, a woman. This will
be an eternal issue; carried on at this very moment by the
inevitable war with Iraq; politicians and those who brainwash the
military, if they haven't been already, can only see in black or white,
and will always face the consequences of this.
Mills et Boon
KelticKarma28 September 2002
I won't mince my words. This is a poorly put together chick flick, a glammed-up, (should have been) straight-to-video potboiler.
Here's what I believe the director thought:
(1) France looks nice - lets make a picture there (2) Cate Blanchett looks nice - lets put her in France (3) Berets are back in fashion - lets put Cate Blanchett in a beret, in France (4) Hmm.. maybe too nice so far. Lets have some Germans in there, they're not nice. (5) "Crudup" is a great name - lets have him in France, with Cate Blanchett, and her beret. (6) Lets rock !!
Heres what I thought:
(1) Cate Blanchett does look stunning throughout this film, and can certainly wear a beret. (2) It is completely preposterous to have her speak in a Scottish accent prior to her going to France, and in an English accent when she gets there. When she is supposed to be speaking fluent French. (3) Cate appears to have been sent into France by the British with no particular aim in mind. She wombles about, messing everything up, and appears to be completely superfluous; there is not one thing she does for the War effort which could not have been performed just as efficiently by a half-trained monkey - in a beret, of course. (4) Crudup, the heroic Maquis, is just about the most lamebrained person you could hope to meet. He spends a lot of his time shouting at Germans, which I would presume from my knowledge of goings-on in France at that time, is not the best way to remain incognito. (5) The Plot is awful. Yet again the Hollywood-pleasing formula of "Poor Old Jews + Bad Old Germans" is trotted out. Nothing new, cliche follows cliche. Oh, but we now have Bad French too. Big Deal.
This really is a laughably bad film. But it is more than that, it is insulting to the memory of those brave men and women who went into France during the War serving with SOE.
Forget this nonsense. If you want to know what really happened in France during the WW2, rent "Carve Her Name With Pride", the story of Violet Szabo, a real SOE operative.
Here's what I believe the director thought:
(1) France looks nice - lets make a picture there (2) Cate Blanchett looks nice - lets put her in France (3) Berets are back in fashion - lets put Cate Blanchett in a beret, in France (4) Hmm.. maybe too nice so far. Lets have some Germans in there, they're not nice. (5) "Crudup" is a great name - lets have him in France, with Cate Blanchett, and her beret. (6) Lets rock !!
Heres what I thought:
(1) Cate Blanchett does look stunning throughout this film, and can certainly wear a beret. (2) It is completely preposterous to have her speak in a Scottish accent prior to her going to France, and in an English accent when she gets there. When she is supposed to be speaking fluent French. (3) Cate appears to have been sent into France by the British with no particular aim in mind. She wombles about, messing everything up, and appears to be completely superfluous; there is not one thing she does for the War effort which could not have been performed just as efficiently by a half-trained monkey - in a beret, of course. (4) Crudup, the heroic Maquis, is just about the most lamebrained person you could hope to meet. He spends a lot of his time shouting at Germans, which I would presume from my knowledge of goings-on in France at that time, is not the best way to remain incognito. (5) The Plot is awful. Yet again the Hollywood-pleasing formula of "Poor Old Jews + Bad Old Germans" is trotted out. Nothing new, cliche follows cliche. Oh, but we now have Bad French too. Big Deal.
This really is a laughably bad film. But it is more than that, it is insulting to the memory of those brave men and women who went into France during the War serving with SOE.
Forget this nonsense. If you want to know what really happened in France during the WW2, rent "Carve Her Name With Pride", the story of Violet Szabo, a real SOE operative.
Unconvincing film following an excellent documentary
imdb-293010 October 2004
This film is a love story, loosely based on the real-life heroism of WWII. Those who enjoy such films would not have been disappointed by Charlotte Gray.
Unfortunately, Channel 4 decided to precede the film with the transmission of a documentary about the real-life heroines, whose personal sacrifices, pragmatic courage and strength of character shone out of my TV in a way that had me close to tears. The film, which followed, showed none of the iron self-discipline, the de-sensitising effect of war nor the constant fear of discovery these people lived with, but concerned itself with emotional story lines that would have been at home in any modern love story, loosely based on any social environment you care to choose. Far from blending into the background, along with the oppressed French population, Cate Blanchett was often portrayed parading in high heels and flattering autumnal colours, looking like a million francs
Too frequently for this viewer, it dipped into the downright absurd, e.g. having a) the male lead exposing himself to danger in an astonishing, barking tirade at German troops, b) the collaborationist French schoolteacher volunteering to the goodies that he was a snitch for the Germans and c) Charlotte herself somehow persuading a gendarme not to reveal her whereabouts to his search party colleagues, even when safely out of range of her pistol.
What a wonderful piece of history it was. And what a wonderful film could have been made of it (with the same cast too; the individual performances were all perfectly OK, especially in the minor roles).
Unfortunately, Channel 4 decided to precede the film with the transmission of a documentary about the real-life heroines, whose personal sacrifices, pragmatic courage and strength of character shone out of my TV in a way that had me close to tears. The film, which followed, showed none of the iron self-discipline, the de-sensitising effect of war nor the constant fear of discovery these people lived with, but concerned itself with emotional story lines that would have been at home in any modern love story, loosely based on any social environment you care to choose. Far from blending into the background, along with the oppressed French population, Cate Blanchett was often portrayed parading in high heels and flattering autumnal colours, looking like a million francs
Too frequently for this viewer, it dipped into the downright absurd, e.g. having a) the male lead exposing himself to danger in an astonishing, barking tirade at German troops, b) the collaborationist French schoolteacher volunteering to the goodies that he was a snitch for the Germans and c) Charlotte herself somehow persuading a gendarme not to reveal her whereabouts to his search party colleagues, even when safely out of range of her pistol.
What a wonderful piece of history it was. And what a wonderful film could have been made of it (with the same cast too; the individual performances were all perfectly OK, especially in the minor roles).
workmanlike WWII espionage film
grnhair200130 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have a bias to confess: I could not see too many WWII spy films, read too many Ken Follett novels, get bored by the genre or complain of familiar stories told again. Today's narratives admittedly pit a clear evil force--the Nazis--against "good guy" spies, without delving into the moral complexities that might have led a decent German to join the Nazi party or search deeply into the evils that real spies did as a matter of fact, believing the ends to justify the means. While I understand that the real history is much more morally complex, the good guy-bad guy plots in the WWII spy genre are still satisfying to some more simple side of my personality.
Charlotte Gray is every bit as good as any other such film in the genre that I can recall. Admittedly, there are some ridiculous plot points (why the French fellow doesn't get shot down for yelling at the Nazis in tanks is still a mystery to me, and I thought her risking her life apparently just to write a letter to the condemned children was illogical--why not save yourself for the chance to save some other children instead?), but then what movie do I see that hasn't three or four illogical moments? I have no idea why this particular film is so despised, though I have to wonder if it is because a woman is the heroic character. I thought we'd come beyond such silliness, but lately, I've been thinking, no, there is still a lot of male anxiety about strong women, even if they are safely far away in time and place, and I suspect that has skewed the response to the movie.
My strongest negative reaction to the film was the same one I have to most recent Hollywood films, and is why I never go to see one at the cinema or even buy many DVDs: the women are too thin, unhealthily thin, hideous to look at for that, and Blanchett qualifies there. This actually interrupts my suspension of disbelief: whenever I see a full-body shot of a size 0 actress, I'm diverted while I think "eat a damned sandwich! Get some eating disorders therapy!" My awareness of the health crisis that this aesthetic is precipitating in our young women always detracts from my enjoyment of movies after that fact. Additionally, it isn't correct historically. Beauty in the 1940's was not stick-thinness, it was a size 10 full-busted woman.
Charlotte Gray is every bit as good as any other such film in the genre that I can recall. Admittedly, there are some ridiculous plot points (why the French fellow doesn't get shot down for yelling at the Nazis in tanks is still a mystery to me, and I thought her risking her life apparently just to write a letter to the condemned children was illogical--why not save yourself for the chance to save some other children instead?), but then what movie do I see that hasn't three or four illogical moments? I have no idea why this particular film is so despised, though I have to wonder if it is because a woman is the heroic character. I thought we'd come beyond such silliness, but lately, I've been thinking, no, there is still a lot of male anxiety about strong women, even if they are safely far away in time and place, and I suspect that has skewed the response to the movie.
My strongest negative reaction to the film was the same one I have to most recent Hollywood films, and is why I never go to see one at the cinema or even buy many DVDs: the women are too thin, unhealthily thin, hideous to look at for that, and Blanchett qualifies there. This actually interrupts my suspension of disbelief: whenever I see a full-body shot of a size 0 actress, I'm diverted while I think "eat a damned sandwich! Get some eating disorders therapy!" My awareness of the health crisis that this aesthetic is precipitating in our young women always detracts from my enjoyment of movies after that fact. Additionally, it isn't correct historically. Beauty in the 1940's was not stick-thinness, it was a size 10 full-busted woman.
This Cate
enc1no4 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Possible spoilers within.
The character development here by Cate is great. You get to follow her from a susceptible woman, to a person which personality has changed by various events. The excellent thing here is Cates performance, obviously. You see the original Charlotte all the time as Cate embed different characteristics, based on her experiences, as the movie progresses.
Also notice her being accused, look at the confusion she's portraying. A Cate moment. Indeed.
The character development here by Cate is great. You get to follow her from a susceptible woman, to a person which personality has changed by various events. The excellent thing here is Cates performance, obviously. You see the original Charlotte all the time as Cate embed different characteristics, based on her experiences, as the movie progresses.
Also notice her being accused, look at the confusion she's portraying. A Cate moment. Indeed.
Did not hold my attention and a tad sentimental.
RatedVforVinny1 December 2019
A bit too sentimental for my taste but a fairly a decent drama, concerning a young British woman, who joins a party of very brave, French (WW2) resistance fighters. Can't find much above this pretty average production but the subject matter is certainly an interesting sub-chapter, from the war period.
Too brief
Stars-228 June 2002
A very short rough idea of the life of Nancy Wake, in France during WW II. I think the director spoiled this one. It could have been so much better under a different director. I think it really needed more of a male influence.(I'm not anti feminist, but some things need a masculine view, and direction.)Gillian Armstrong has done some marvelous things with her other films, but this was not her best.
Beautiful depiction of 1940s France
garbagegal1622 December 2002
I adore this movie. It is an extraordinary tale of one woman's courage and passion during World War Two. Cate Blanchett is remarkable and vibrant as always. She is really one of the most talented actresses. Billy Crudup is very charismatic and charming. This movie is both beautiful and tragic. It is definitely worth watching if you are looking for a film that will keep you fascinated and entralled. It's worth renting just to see the excellent chemistry between Blanchett and Crudup.
A solid 7 ...and good watch
rmgniagara-447-23607110 September 2020
Never mind the war, here's a tatty novella
m-vinteuil11 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The story of The French Resistance is rarely told. When French cinema did tackle their national shame, the results were oblique, bold, and often the most honest films made about the war. Charlotte Gray is the opposite. It is a dime-store romance novella which uses occupied France as a backdrop. A script and basis which are stultifyingly hypocritical; The heroine (Cate Blanchett) establishing early that the occupation of France is nothing to joke about, then proceeding to trivialise it all in a quest to find her boyfriend. Australian director Gillian Armstrong dispenses with authenticity, and other cumbersome aspects that would hinder her making a popcorn time waster. In other words, she didn't even bother to rent Army of Shadows or Le Corbeau the night before principal photography began.
Grey is not a particularly enjoyable chick-flick either. The faults should be bleedin' obvious, but I will outline those of grating annoyance:
The Accent Problem
The story rests on Charlotte being fluent in French. Blanchett was more than willing to learn French for the part, but Armstrong didn't think that a few months of French lessons would be entirely convincing (or had no faith in Blanchett abilities). Her solution? Have Cate speak in a Scotch accent while in England, then affect an English accent while in France. Er... more convincing? Other actors in the French scenes have accents all over the shop, but then why should a film with such a serious subject matter be realistic?
The Romance(s)
A woman who risks her life, and the lives of others for her own half-baked affair, is a complete flake. Shortly after consummating her relationship with a dashing pilot (whom poses as though for a Biggles cover) he is shot down over enemy territory. The woman embarks on a what would seem like a noble quest to aid The French Resistance, but is actually a way for her to track down her square-jawed love interest. Her bumbling during a first mission gets another woman killed, and doesn't make her at all sympathetic (if all her hypocritical sanctimony at the beginning didn't already). She almost immediately starts peppering a romance with a Frenchman, making the "I will follow you to the ends of the Earth" love between her and Biggles a sad joke. Neither romance is realistic or enjoyable, to the point where you want to see Charlotte lose both.
The Ending
She doesn't lose both, in fact despite all her offensive nonsense throughout the film, she finds and rejects Biggles in peace time, in favour of melodramatic Frenchie! A departure from the book, apparently, and every chick-flick ever made. A slap in the face and a waste of time.
Grey is not a particularly enjoyable chick-flick either. The faults should be bleedin' obvious, but I will outline those of grating annoyance:
The Accent Problem
The story rests on Charlotte being fluent in French. Blanchett was more than willing to learn French for the part, but Armstrong didn't think that a few months of French lessons would be entirely convincing (or had no faith in Blanchett abilities). Her solution? Have Cate speak in a Scotch accent while in England, then affect an English accent while in France. Er... more convincing? Other actors in the French scenes have accents all over the shop, but then why should a film with such a serious subject matter be realistic?
The Romance(s)
A woman who risks her life, and the lives of others for her own half-baked affair, is a complete flake. Shortly after consummating her relationship with a dashing pilot (whom poses as though for a Biggles cover) he is shot down over enemy territory. The woman embarks on a what would seem like a noble quest to aid The French Resistance, but is actually a way for her to track down her square-jawed love interest. Her bumbling during a first mission gets another woman killed, and doesn't make her at all sympathetic (if all her hypocritical sanctimony at the beginning didn't already). She almost immediately starts peppering a romance with a Frenchman, making the "I will follow you to the ends of the Earth" love between her and Biggles a sad joke. Neither romance is realistic or enjoyable, to the point where you want to see Charlotte lose both.
The Ending
She doesn't lose both, in fact despite all her offensive nonsense throughout the film, she finds and rejects Biggles in peace time, in favour of melodramatic Frenchie! A departure from the book, apparently, and every chick-flick ever made. A slap in the face and a waste of time.
Satisfying
BetteMid26 March 2002
This film held my attention the entire time. The cinematography was absolutely stunning. This is a beautiful film. I was taken in by the beauty that Cate Blanchett and Billy Crudup possess. It wasn't the most exciting cinema ever, but none-the-less it still had it's wonderfully planned moments. Worth a watch!
war drama
PennyReviews18 February 2013
Many films have been inspired from the World War II. This one adds a romantic note to the whole struggle of the war. Beautiful structured, follows the life of the main character, Charlotte Gray, who participates on the resistance in France. Amazing landscapes, form a nice atmosphere, in addition to the great costumes. On the other hand, the performances are perfect, picturing nicely the human drama and the effort to deal with difficult situations that the war create. The director controls the drama and the thriller so that they are not too much for the audience to be bored. The only thing that works against the whole movie is the fact that they are using English as the main language, even on letters, which seems odd as the main plot takes place in France. All in all, a great historical film.
Could have been much better
benbrae7628 August 2006
If ever there was a pointless movie, then this is it. The story is basically the wartime experience of a Scots lass Charlotte Gray, who has a much needed talent of being able to speak fluent French. ("Oh Lord, not again", do I hear somebody say? Yep! Afraid so.) It begins with Charlotte sitting in a railway carriage rolling up a cigarette with a type of paper that wasn't on the market until after the war (i.e. with tapered corners). Still in the carriage she then talks to a complete stranger who is obviously after personal information. Whatever happened to the observance of the popular slogan of the time, "Be like Dad, keep Mum"? After the railway journey she is seen alighting in a supposedly war-torn, yet oddly blimp-free and undamaged London from a post-war (indeed relatively modern) London bus. After which it starts to get sensible, but only for a while.
After falling in love with an RAF officer (and to whom for some unexplained reason she has tried to teach French beneath the sheets...please don't laugh, it's supposed to be serious), she discovers that he has been posted missing in France, so decides to join SOE (Special Operations Executive) for the express purpose of finding him. Hold on! It gets sillier!
Notwithstanding the fact that never would such an emotional girl either have passed the scrutiny, or indeed the strict training of the SOE, she is sent to France on a probationary tryout. A tryout? In wartime France, albeit only in Vichy? Oh come on!
Considering that many (if not most) agents sent, were captured and/or killed within days of their arrival this idea is ridiculous. In wartime, or at any other time, there is no place for sentimentality in the furtherance of sabotage or espionage. Certainly no tryouts. Churchill's idea was to set Europe ablaze, not to send love-sick girls on errands of stupidity (or should that be Cupidity). I'm still actually wondering what her official mission was, or did I miss something?
Then we're given a ludicrous depiction of an air drop. Supplies are dropped from no more than 60-100 feet at which height the parachutes would not have time to open, but somehow they do. (Needless to say if a person is dropped from that height they would almost certainly be killed, with or without a parachute.)
A short while later comes a scene (after said airdrop, of which the enemy had got wind and ambushed it), which shows that the Germans have left bodies of resistant fighters lying unguarded in the middle of a field. I find it extremely puzzling that the Germans didn't remove them from the scene, if for nothing else than to glean vital information from them. But then I suppose the screenwriter thought that really the Germans weren't all that clever. What? In his dreams! In the meantime Charlotte learns that her pilot boyfriend is dead.
Although being somewhat tedious, the story then begins to take on a vestige of reality, regarding the fate of two parent-less Jewish children and the resistance group leader's father who is also of Jewish ancestry. I won't say any more on the plot for fear of any more spoilers, but suffice it to say that the end is even soppier than the beginning.
I was going to mention more goofs in the film, but some have already been noticed by other reviewers and placed in the "Goofs" board. I refer you to them.
It's all reasonably well acted, and has good cinematography, but in coping with such an empty-headed script, no-one shines through. I was hoping this production would be as good as both "Odette" and "Carve Her Name with Pride". I'm sorry to say it doesn't even come close to either. That said, there was the making of a really good movie here, and it could have been another fitting tribute to the courage of all wartime agents. However, somewhere along the line it got lost amongst the emotional twaddle and the scriptwriter's fantasy. Maybe in the future someone with more nous will try a remake, and sort out the mess.
After falling in love with an RAF officer (and to whom for some unexplained reason she has tried to teach French beneath the sheets...please don't laugh, it's supposed to be serious), she discovers that he has been posted missing in France, so decides to join SOE (Special Operations Executive) for the express purpose of finding him. Hold on! It gets sillier!
Notwithstanding the fact that never would such an emotional girl either have passed the scrutiny, or indeed the strict training of the SOE, she is sent to France on a probationary tryout. A tryout? In wartime France, albeit only in Vichy? Oh come on!
Considering that many (if not most) agents sent, were captured and/or killed within days of their arrival this idea is ridiculous. In wartime, or at any other time, there is no place for sentimentality in the furtherance of sabotage or espionage. Certainly no tryouts. Churchill's idea was to set Europe ablaze, not to send love-sick girls on errands of stupidity (or should that be Cupidity). I'm still actually wondering what her official mission was, or did I miss something?
Then we're given a ludicrous depiction of an air drop. Supplies are dropped from no more than 60-100 feet at which height the parachutes would not have time to open, but somehow they do. (Needless to say if a person is dropped from that height they would almost certainly be killed, with or without a parachute.)
A short while later comes a scene (after said airdrop, of which the enemy had got wind and ambushed it), which shows that the Germans have left bodies of resistant fighters lying unguarded in the middle of a field. I find it extremely puzzling that the Germans didn't remove them from the scene, if for nothing else than to glean vital information from them. But then I suppose the screenwriter thought that really the Germans weren't all that clever. What? In his dreams! In the meantime Charlotte learns that her pilot boyfriend is dead.
Although being somewhat tedious, the story then begins to take on a vestige of reality, regarding the fate of two parent-less Jewish children and the resistance group leader's father who is also of Jewish ancestry. I won't say any more on the plot for fear of any more spoilers, but suffice it to say that the end is even soppier than the beginning.
I was going to mention more goofs in the film, but some have already been noticed by other reviewers and placed in the "Goofs" board. I refer you to them.
It's all reasonably well acted, and has good cinematography, but in coping with such an empty-headed script, no-one shines through. I was hoping this production would be as good as both "Odette" and "Carve Her Name with Pride". I'm sorry to say it doesn't even come close to either. That said, there was the making of a really good movie here, and it could have been another fitting tribute to the courage of all wartime agents. However, somewhere along the line it got lost amongst the emotional twaddle and the scriptwriter's fantasy. Maybe in the future someone with more nous will try a remake, and sort out the mess.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
